The instrument most commonly used, and generally preferred, for vitreous surgery is a pneumatically-operated axial guillotine cutter. A typical pneumatically-operated guillotine cutter has a handpiece that includes a needle with a cutting/aspiration port located near the needle's distal end. The handpiece receives pneumatic power from a vitreoretinal surgical system (or console). Often, the system also provides aspiration and illumination functions.
Although numerous improvements have been made over the years, the fundamental aspects of vitreous cutters are known and taught by O'Malley and Heintz in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,815,604 and 3,884,238, respectively. In its modern form, the axial guillotine cutter is relatively small, lightweight, durable, cheap, and exhibits excellent cutting characteristics.
One negative aspect of guillotine cutters, whether pneumatically or electrically operated, axial or rotary, is that the flow through the cutting port is discontinuous, being interrupted when the cutting blade passes across the port. In vitreous surgery, this can often be observed as “vitreous bounce,” as the vitreous is alternately pulled into the port and released. This, in turn, can make removal of vitreous close to the retina hazardous, as the retina may become detached or may be inadvertently drawn into the cutting port.
Sussman and Zaleski, for example, provide one solution to this problem in U.S. Pat. No. 5,284,472. An alternative solution, however, is to increase the cutting rate. It is observed in clinical practice that the vitreous bounce is reduced to a negligible level when the cutting rate is high, generally in the range of 1200 to 1500 cuts per minute (cpm) or more. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,176,628, for example, Charles et al. state that increased cutting rate (up to 1200 cpm) is a desirable cutter characteristic.
Various improvements have gradually raised the maximum cutting rate of pneumatic axial guillotine cutters from 420 cpm in the 1970s to 600 cpm in 1982 and to 800 cpm in 1992. In contrast, high-speed cutting has been available from the very earliest electrically-operated guillotine cutters. Peyman and Dodich claim operation of an electric cutter at 3000 cpm in U.S. Pat. No. 3,776,238.
The principal reason for the slow progress with pneumatically-operated cutters is the physics of moving gas through a long interconnecting tube to drive the surgical handpiece. In order to preserve sterility in the vicinity of the patient and surgeon, the console containing the driver mechanism (which supplies the pneumatic energy to drive the cutter) is located at a considerable distance from the patient. The surgical handpiece is typically connected to the console through 72″ to 84″ of tubing. The rate at which the pneumatic pressure at the handpiece end of the tubing can change is limited by the physics of compressible-gas flow. In particular, the flow velocity through the tube cannot exceed the speed of sound.
Eight hundred cpm is not the ultimate speed limit for pneumatic axial guillotine cutters. A speed of 1500 cpm has been successfully demonstrated in a cutter positioned at the end of 84″ of tubing. To achieve this performance, however, requires coordinated improvements in both the surgical handpiece and the pneumatic driver mechanism in order to overcome the physical limitations of the intervening tubing.
While a high cutting rate is desirable for removing vitreous close to the retina, a high cutting rate is not desirable for removing material at other locations in the eye. The rate of removal of vitreous is significantly greater at a cut rate of 500 to 600 cpm than it is at a cut rate of 1500 cpm. This is because the vitreous is removed in “nibbles” at 1500 cpm and in “bites” at 600 cpm. Thus, when vitreous bounce is not a concern, such as when removing material at the center of the eye, it is desirable to remove vitreous at a lower cut rate.
Despite the known benefits of having an adjustable-speed, pneumatic cutter that is also capable of operating at high speeds, few if any cutters exist that offer such functionality. Since high-speed choices are limited, some surgeons have resorted to using modern electrically driven probes even though they are expensive, heavy, and have a tendency to vibrate excessively.